OK... first, I would like to say that the comparison does NOT seem biased. Everything they said about the M3 is true. It does, in fact, have pretty low torque compared to the competition. This generation of M3 clearly take its queues from the F1 world as opposed to the muscle car world. I think that is very much in line with what the M3 stands for.

As Mr Shelby once said: Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.

The M3 is an interesting beast. You really do need to wind it up before it comes to life. The other cars (especially the merc) have TONS of down low torque which will not only improve their 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, but it will really crank up the ass-dyno.

The bottom line is that the M3 has a really special motor. Pretty much anyone can make a torque beast... and if you can make lots of torque, you can make lots of HP, not too tough... look at the vette Not many people can make an engine which generates peak HP at 8300 RPM. It is really an amazing experience to tap redline in this car.

And to quickly go back to our roots for a quick minute here... the M3 has never been about max HP or peak torque. The M3 (at the core) is about handling before anything. Anyone who has driven this car in the twisties knows they have nailed that goal 120%!!! Perfectly balanced, nimble, quick, amazing...

If you are really most concerned with HP/Tq, 0-60, 1/4 mile, then maybe the merc or the lexus is the right car for. If you are most concerned with feeling 100% connected to the road while roaring through back country mountain roads... I'd stick with the ///M3.

Yes, but if you look at the actual numbers on the back of the article you will notice that, other than acceleration, the M3 lost in subjectivity areas (except for steering feel...funny). He is simply saying that this is the first time a Mag has taken points away in the subjectivity areas and hence his dislike for R&T....

And PS, R&T rated the Merc engine the highest which makes no sense due to the points you made...

What is interesting is that despite all that torque and big displacement of AMG engines like C63,their torque curves(which is never as flat as M3) and tall gearing results in Flexibility times which are not quite impressive considering their big engines.
A good example of this is SPORT AUTO: M3 sedan 6-speed vs C63 AMG 7-speed
M3 :80-120km/h in 6th gear (which is its TOP GEAR) 7.4 s
C63 :80-120km/h in 6th gear 8.3 s

Another one SPORT AUTO CLS63 vs M5
M5:80-120km/h in 7th(top gear) 9.3 s
CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th(not top gear) 9.9 s
So despite all those differences in torque and engine size,the M5 is more flexible than CLS63 even in a gear higher!! The fair comparison is M5 in 6th gear vs CLS63 in 6th gear which is:
M5:80-120km/h in 6th 6.9s and CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th 9.9s
Therefore, it is better to consider the torque at wheel and not only compare cars on the basis of their flywheel torque because in that case we are neglecting the huge effect of GEARING in performance of a car.
If only engine size and flywheel torque was important,then the FERRARI F430 could never be faster than a CORVETTE C6(404hp).
So M cars are excellent combinations of low-end grunt and high-rpm power.

Road & Track couldn't possibly favor any BMW because it's published by the same company who publishes Car & Driver, which of course we all know is absolutely biased in favor of BMWs. Hachette Filipacchi can't have two magazines that allow BMW to win, because that would be like putting all their eggs in one basket

What is interesting is that despite all that torque and big displacement of AMG engines like C63,their torque curves(which is never as flat as M3) and tall gearing results in Flexibility times which are not quite impressive considering their big engines.
A good example of this is SPORT AUTO: M3 sedan 6-speed vs C63 AMG 7-speed
M3 :80-120km/h in 6th gear (which is its TOP GEAR) 7.4 s
C63 :80-120km/h in 6th gear 8.3 s

Another one SPORT AUTO CLS63 vs M5
M5:80-120km/h in 7th(top gear) 9.3 s
CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th(not top gear) 9.9 s
So despite all those differences in torque and engine size,the M5 is more flexible than CLS63 even in a gear higher!! The fair comparison is M5 in 6th gear vs CLS63 in 6th gear which is:
M5:80-120km/h in 6th 6.9s and CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th 9.9s
Therefore, it is better to consider the torque at wheel and not only compare cars on the basis of their flywheel torque because in that case we are neglecting the huge effect of GEARING in performance of a car.
If only engine size and flywheel torque was important,then the FERRARI F430 could never be faster than a CORVETTE C6(404hp).
So M cars are excellent combinations of low-end grunt and high-rpm power.

Good first post, and welcome aboard.

It's clear you've been having fun analyzing this, reminding me of some of the fun I had awhile back.

However, you can simplify your thoughts a bit on this. What it comes down to is that, at any given speed, the car that is making better power to weight will accelerate faster at that point than the car making less power to weight - and that's it.

Torque doesn't matter, gearing doesn't matter, rpm doesn't matter, etc. It's just how much power at that point vs how much weight.

The M3 is fast because it makes a lot of power, and in a race, you're never going to put yourself at a disadvantage by being down on power. You just rev the hell out of it and keep it as close to the power peak as you can.

The (minor) knock on the M3 is that it feels a little lazy at low rpm compared to some of the competition. No biggie, though. You just downshift or hold a gear longer so as to keep the tach needle over there on the left-hand side of the dial, and you're good to go.

That costs you a second or so in a passing situation out on the highway, though, but I'm sure the 4.6 stroker kits now on the market will fix that right damn now.